The creation of “monsters”: the discourse of opposition to in vitro fertilization in Poland

Abstract

In Poland, there is a campaign to criminalise in vitro fertilization, led by the Catholic church. This article explores how this campaign makes “monsters” of IVF children in its discourse, that is, embodiments of “the other” in the sense of Frankenstein's monster. Basing the analysis primarily on Catholic mass media publications, the article investigates the discursive strategies employed to oppose IVF, most notably by the Catholic clergy and activists and journalists associated with the Church. They attribute “monstrosity” to the children in the following ways: physical (possible bodily deformity), psychological (survivor syndrome, identity crisis), social (loneliness, uncertain place in family relations), and ethical (a life burdened with the deaths of many embryos). Although the world of families with IVF does not provide examples of children who could be considered monsters in any of these terms, these arguments have become the primary reasons given for banning IVF.

Résumé

En Pologne, une campagne dirigée par l'Église catholique cherche à criminaliser la fécondation in vitro. Cet article analyse comment, dans son discours, cette campagne transforme les enfants de la FIV en « monstres », c'est-à-dire en incarnation de « l'autre » au sens du monstre de Frankenstein. Se fondant principalement sur les publications des médias catholiques, l'article enquête sur les stratégies discursives utilisées pour s'opposer à la FIV, notamment par le clergé et les militants catholiques ainsi que les journalistes associés avec l'Église. Ils classent la « monstruosité » des enfants de la manière suivante : physique (possible difformité physique), psychologique (syndrome du survivant, crise d'identité), sociale (solitude, place incertaine dans les liens familiaux) et éthique (une vie grevée par le décès de nombreux embryons). Bien que les familles ayant eu recours à la FIV ne fournissent pas d'exemples d'enfants pouvant être considérés comme des monstres dans aucun de ces sens, ces arguments sont devenus les principaux motifs d'interdiction de la FIV.

Resumen

En Polonia, existe una campaña para penalizar la fertilización in vitro, dirigida por la Iglesia católica. En este artículo se explora cómo esta campaña crea “monstruos” de los niños productos de FIV en su discurso, es decir, encarnación de “lo otro” en el sentido del monstruo de Frankenstein. Basando el análisis principalmente en publicaciones de los medios masivos católicos, el artículo investiga las estrategias discursivas empleadas para oponerse a la FIV, en particular el clero católico y activistas y periodistas asociados con la Iglesia. Atribuyen la “monstruosidad” a los niños de las siguientes maneras: física (posible deformidad corporal), psicológica (síndrome de sobreviviente, crisis de identidad), social (soledad, lugar inestable en las relaciones familiares) y ética (una vida cargada con la muerte de muchos embriones). Aunque el mundo de las familias con FIV no ofrece ejemplos de niños que se podrían considerar como monstruos en cualquiera de estos términos, estos argumentos han pasado a ser las principales razones planteadas a favor de la prohibición de la FIV.

Key Words:

• in vitro fertilization
• reproductive rights
• monsterization
• Catholic church
• Poland

“What is the literary representation of Frankenstein, a creature brought to life against nature, if not a prototype of in vitro?”

This question was asked in 2009 by one of the key players on the Polish political scene, Catholic bishop Tadeusz Pieronek.¹ His is one among many such opinions in the Polish debate on whether in vitro fertilization (IVF) should be allowed, the most recent phase of which began at the end of 2007 (and continues to this day), when the then Minister of Health announced reimbursement from the state budget for IVF. However, there have been no reimbursements as yet, although health care is public in Poland and IVF has been provided for over 20 years, successfully and with broad social approval. The cost of one IVF procedure in 2012, and IVF very often needs to be repeated, was € 1800–3000² and considerably exceeds average monthly per capita income in Poland, which in 2011 was 1227 PLN (€ 300).³

Infertility clinics, of which there are currently about 40 in Poland, employ virtually all available contemporary infertility treatments and attain good pregnancy rates on a global comparison. Approximately 20% of couples in Poland are infertile (no pregnancy after at least 12 months of unprotected intercourse). IVF children constitute about 1.5% of all children, the average for highly developed countries. Patients who seek IVF are entirely dependent on treatment offered by the private sector, which dictates the conditions of the programmes and manages the provision of information on assisted reproductive technology.

IVF is not regulated by law in Poland. Several draft bills were submitted to the Polish Parliament, ranging from a very restrictive bill to ban IVF, to one drafted by a right-wing party making IVF provision punishable by imprisonment, to a liberal one with no limitations on IVF. None were passed. Poland's ruling Civic Platform produced two competing draft bills: one which stipulates that IVF would be legal only for married couples and prohibiting the freezing or destruction of embryos, and a more liberal one that allows for producing and freezing of extra embryos and allowing IVF also for single women and unmarried couples. However, neither draft bill included public funding for the treatment.⁴

In 2012 several politicians announced yet again that they wanted to regulate this field, and in response right-wing activists made frozen embryos an issue. However, nothing has changed.

As Polish feminists have shown, reproductive rights are limited and not respected in Poland.^5–7 Moreover, “laws and customs concerning sexual mores and reproduction are heavily influenced by the Roman Catholic church”.⁵ However, although the vast majority of Poles consider themselves Catholic, research by Polish sociologists shows that when it comes to certain issues, including ones concerning morality, its followers often do not agree with the standpoint of the Church.⁸

The main voices and perspectives in the IVF debate

A mapping of attitudes towards IVF on the basis of the main Polish media outlets shows that the main actors in this debate are politicians and Roman Catholic priests.⁹ Representatives of feminist circles rarely appear in the mainstream media (and in general feminist voices are given little attention in Poland). However, a few feminist organizations in Poland work actively for women's reproductive rights,¹⁰ and there is a very active non-governmental organization, Association for the Treatment of Infertility and Adoption “Nasz Bocian” (“Our Stork”).¹¹ Although in Poland infertility is rather medicalized, biologists' and physicians' voices are also often overlooked in the public debate. The same may be said of the voices of couples struggling with infertility, who are only occasionally cited in newspaper commentaries. The main voices are those of politicians and clergy; hence, IVF, like abortion, is debated as a socially sensitive issue. As Agata Chełstowska points out:

“Throughout 2008 and 2009 IVF became ‘the new abortion debate’. Politicians on the right used the same languge to talk about fertilized eggs in laboratories that they use to talk about fetuses. They claimed to ‘defend life’ and ‘prevent murder’.” ¹²

In this article I investigate the discursive strategy used to condemn the use of IVF by advocates for the criminalization and prohibition of IVF in Poland, represented most notably by Catholic clergy, activists and journalists associated with the Church. I base my analysis primarily on Catholic mass media publications, including:

•	the very conservative and very widely distributed weekly news magazines Niedziela and Gość Niedzielny (circulation each about 150,000);13
•	the ultra-conservative and nationalistic daily newspapers Nasz Dziennik 14 (circulation about 150,000); the circulation of the tabloid-style Fakt, the biggest-selling paper in the country is about 450,000, and the circulation of Gazeta Wyborcza, the leading newspaper, is about 330,000;13
•	Tygodnik Powszechny, a magazine representative of the more liberal and intellectual wing of Polish Catholicism (circulation about 22,000);13
•	internet publications by authors associated with the Catholic Church, particularly those posted on popular Catholic portals (such as opoka.pl, fronda.pl); and
•	public appearances by Catholic clergy.

I am also interested in the experiences of those who have decided to try IVF. Since 2009, I have been following the largest Polish internet forums pertaining to infertility, where infertile women tell their life stories and exchange information about their treatments. The main sites of this type are NaszBocian.pl, affiliated with the Association “Nasz Bocian”, and Gazeta.pl, which belongs to the largest group of Polish online services. Both forums are open to the public. I have also been conducting interviews with people struggling with infertility, a few of whom are quoted here.

I am aware of the rich anthropological literature on the problematic of new reproductive technologies,¹⁵ and of reflections on assisted reproductive technology deriving from feminist studies.¹⁶ In this article, however, I will mainly call upon theories dealing with the problem of the social construction of IVF children as monsters.

I agree with David Gilmore, who says: “The mind needs monsters. Monsters embody all that is dangerous and horrible in the human imagination.” ¹⁷ From this perspective, the monster is not only a terrifying entity but also a metaphor. As Zakiya Hanafi says:

“The monster is a concept that we need in order to tell ourselves what we are not… Monsters do exist whenever people mention them or describe them, even if they may not exist in the real world… Most monsters exist by dint of being repeatedly described in words rather than by being sighted in the flesh.”¹⁸

Frankenstein is the most popular monster story. Jon Turney, in an inspiring book about relations between modern science and popular myths, calls this story “the governing myth of modern biology”.¹⁹ It is a reference point in today's debate about biotechnology, especially new reproductive technology. So, it is not without reason that Frankenstein's creature appears in debates on IVF in Poland. It is invoked to express fears of biotechnology and support the argumentation of its opponents.

I am also inspired by the work of Jeffrey Cohen and his “method of reading cultures from the monsters they engender”.²⁰ While Cohen posits that his archaeology of monsters is universal and ignores the local historical context, I am interested in the local manifestation of monsters and how they are brought to life in a certain Catholic country.

According to some participants in the Polish debate on IVF, children born thanks to this technology have the characteristics of monsters. Of course, this is not said directly; “monsterization” is often expressed subconsciously, but it is a tactic used for political aims, by trying to convince the public and policy makers of the horrible effects of using IVF. The method itself also becomes a monster, as do the people involved in it. Monstrosity spills over onto everyone who participates in this blasphemous (according to the rhetoric) act. But what strikes the imagination most is the actual materialization of a monster in the body of a child, with its romantic genealogy and contemporary ideation.

Warnings about the IVF “survivor syndrome”

IVF's opponents state (although they do not provide any data or evidence confirming this statement) that IVF children suffer from anxiety and mental problems in connection with the mode of their conception, and they blame themselves for the deaths of any embryos not transferred to the womb, or as I have heard said: “They live at the cost of their little brothers and sisters.” According to Beata Rusiecka, a psychologist affiliated with the Catholic movement ływa Nadzieja (Living Hope), IVF children:

“…suffer terrible guilt, they ask themselves questions: why am I alive...? Persons whose siblings have been aborted go through analogous experiences… In a similar manner, due to the fact that in the embryonic phase they were chosen from amongst other children by a doctor, children born using IVF feel deep uncertainty as to their right to life.” ²¹

IVF's opponents have borrowed the term “survivor syndrome” from the trauma narrative and applied it to abortion and IVF. “Survivor syndrome” originally was used to describe the reactions and behaviours of people who survived the Holocaust.²² This includes a pattern of symptoms such as persistent anxiety, depression, social withdrawal, physical complaints, emotional numbness and guilt for having survived the trauma when others, and their family members and friends, did not.²³

Although to mainstream psychologists it sounds implausible, “survivor syndrome” after IVF is cited as the most important argument against IVF. Indeed, IVF children may be affected by these claims, being exposed to them in the media. As Anna Krawczak, vice-president of the Association Nasz Bocian and a member of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, points out:

“It may be that children who grow up in a society where IVF is openly and without reproach compared to abortion, will actually come to demand explanations concerning their conception. The constant undermining of our dignity and values as human beings will finally lead to a deep uncertainty about the legitimacy of our existence in the world.” ²⁴

One can assume that the parents of IVF children share this concern, as one of the mothers of an IVF child ironically put it:

“I asked my daughter what she thinks about her conception, she says she doesn't remember where she was conceived... Thankfully there is the Church to remind her that she was born without dignity, that her prototype was Frankenstein and that she was brought back from the dead. It's good that one can count on thy neighbour's love!” ²⁵

Similarly, the so-called post-abortion syndrome is widely posited by anti-abortion advocates,²⁶ but is not recognized by professional psychological associations, e.g. the American Psychological Association.²⁷

Although “survivor syndrome” is used to describe different experiences (e.g. American management studies adopted it to illustrate the mental condition of people who survived corporate downsizing²⁸), in Poland the word ocaleniec (survivor) has been used in fact only for Holocaust survivors. So writing about the survivor syndrome in the context of IVF is a very powerful tactic, even if ethically doubtful and controvertible, and part of the wider tendency by anti-IVF, anti-abortion activists in Poland to use apocalyptic language.²⁹ As Krawczak writes:

“In 2009, public opinion was moved by the comparison of in vitro fertilization to ‘the realization of Frankenstein’. In 2012, comparing IVF to abortion or murder, as well as propagating slogans like ‘IVF is a civilization of death – four corpses and only one lives’ does not seem to be shocking anymore.” ²⁶

According to this rhetoric, IVF and abortion are signs of the so-called civilization of death. According to critics, the death count due to these two phenomena combined reaches tens of millions of human beings, though in the case of IVF this death count is based on embryos that are never implanted and never achieve a pregnancy or a live birth. Recently, many Polish internet portals have displayed the claim that for every child conceived using IVF, there are 19 deaths, even though Polish doctors stress that embryos are not disposed of but frozen until the couple decides for another transfer or donation to others. The birth of a monster, however, as the different concepts of monstrosity (such as the Frankenstein story) show, creates victims.¹⁹ A picture widely circulating on the Polish internet clearly portrays the problem. About a dozen toddlers in nappies are sitting on a white carpet. Above them it says: “Your children. One alive, a few in the toilet, the rest in the freezer.” ²⁶

Deformity

According to one of the most popular narratives concerning monsters, a monster is the result of sin or an evil omen, and this can be found both in ancient literature, including the Bible, and contemporary popular culture.¹⁸ Although modern culture, entrenched in medical discourse, rejects the rhetoric of sin and punishment encoded in our corporality, this rhetoric waits just around the corner. Disease, as Susan Sontag suggested, still incurs a form of punishment.³⁰ Tygodnik Ostrołęcki, a regional weekly magazine, describes the case of Michał, a 14-year-old boy with leukaemia, who was informed by the priest that he was a “test-tube baby”, and his disease was the punishment for the sin of IVF.³¹ One of the participants of the Internet forum pertaining to infertility wrote:

“I went to see the priest yesterday. I learned that I live in sin and that I will be stuck in it until the end of my life. That my child and I will pay a heavy price for what I did, and the fact that my child is now healthy doesn't mean that it won't soon become sick, and I shouldn't wonder why when this happens, because this will be the punishment that will have to fall upon me.” ³²

According to the Catholic church, IVF involves the direct destruction of unborn human life, and therefore the sin of abortion.³³ In the religious and moral rhetoric of anti-IVF activists, the first punishment for the sin of IVF is thus the child's sickness, its body becoming monster-like, though this is rarely said directly. Rzeczpospolita, one of the largest daily newspapers, wrote:

“IVF is an especially risky and flawed method. In the United States, doctors who use this method are required to inform potential parents about the enormous danger to the normal development of the fetus that it may cause, and how much more exposed to retardation are children conceived this way.” ³⁴

Another article in the weekly Gość Niedzielny said:

“In one of the episodes of the very popular show ‘Dr. House’ a boy is admitted to hospital experiencing hallucinations, blood pressure fluctuation, swollen lungs and blood in the anus. The genius diagnostician discovers that the child has two different sets of DNA, which is called a chimera. It turns out that he was conceived with IVF and that two embryos implanted into the woman's body joined into one. One need not resort to fiction in order to prove that children conceived in an artificial manner are more often born with serious flaws, neurological complications or genetic disorders.”³⁵

Polish critics of assisted reproductive technology often cite scientific works that supposedly show flaws in conception with IVF. Nevertheless, as many researchers have demonstrated, among them Barbara Dolińska,³⁶ in her convincing article in the magazine Nauka (Science), this criticism is most often made in an unempirical manner, citing old research results or entirely omitting sources.

A detailed analysis of results obtained by international research teams found that there is no strong evidence that children conceived with IVF are more prone to different diseases or congenital disorders,³⁷ especially when the period of unwanted childlessness and maternal age are taken into account. The increased risk of serious disease in children born after assisted conception is strongly associated with the problems of multiple embryos in pregnancy and pre-term delivery of these pregnancies, which in the past was widespread, including in Poland, but has since been replaced with single embryo transfer, to avoid these problems.³⁸

Even though IVF children are as healthy as other children, the Association Contra in vitro writes: “According to the reports of French scientists from 2010, so-called assisted reproductive technologies raise two-fold the risk of the child having deformities.” ³⁹

Detailed descriptions of genetic disorders work the imagination. In the Nasz Dziennik, Alina Midro, a clinical geneticist who is against IVF, describes all the syndromes she claims IVF children are threatened with,⁴⁰ which are as frightening as they are rare: Prader-Willie syndrome, Angelman's syndrome, Russel-Silver syndrome, Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome. The list of deformities is seemingly endless, obesity, short height, great height, deformed organs, drooling, trembling of the limbs, chewing movements, limited speech, dangling tongue, wide and protruding forehead, eyes improperly set and sticking out, asymmetric body, and much more.⁴⁰ These descriptions are meant to incite fear that every in vitro child is potentially deformed, other, dangerous. In short, a monster.

Using this form of discourse arises from a search by the Church for non-religious arguments to justify ideological stances in recent years.⁴¹ Science is not criticised as a whole. Next to nature, it has become a very important form of legitimization today. Representatives of the Catholic church increasingly call upon scientific research for their argumentation concerning issues of reproduction, and are eager to employ scientific language. Thus, when in following Church doctrine they warn against using modern contraceptives, they do so by citing research which says hormonal contraceptives are detrimental to health, while barrier methods are ineffective. Similarly, fundamental arguments in debates about life's beginnings are based on concepts regarding DNA, genes and joining of the gametes.

Secrets

In science, however, everything should be transparent, enlightened. Monsters, in contrast, are born in secret, in laboratories hidden from the human eye (that was the case with Dr Frankenstein's creation, and that is how modern cyborgs and mutants are created in films).⁴² IVF's opponents also suggest there is a lack of data concerning children conceived in vitro in order to hide the truth about them:

“If statistical data were kept on the health conditions of these people, we would have the proper information ‘for’ or ‘against’ using these methods. Unfortunately, such data do not exist. I suspect that if they were favourable to laboratories conducting [IVF and embryo transfer], they would be published.” ⁴³

Considering the extensive literature on this very topic, such an argument seems out of touch with reality, yet it is often used. European infertility clinics do not appear to be hiding data concerning their IVF procedures, which is evident given the widely available reports from the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. In 2010, 29 Polish clinics joined the European IVF Monitoring programme.⁴⁴ Nonetheless, in Poland, private infertility clinics are not controlled by the state in practice; they are not subject to detailed audits; they function according to their own rules and have their own ways of describing medical interventions. But these clinics do have their own websites, advertise in the media, carefully describe medical procedures, compete for patients with their transparency, and internet forums function here as their very own panopticon.

Yet IVF opponents claim these clinics hide the facts on the dangers of IVF procedures, the illnesses suffered by both women and children, and the lack of education of medical personnel. They even claim some doctors are trained as veterinarians, in cooperation with whom monstrosity is hidden. In the beginning of 2010, the Association Contra in vitro informed the public and the Ministry of Health that IVF clinics employed veterinary doctors specializing in embryology, who had been educated to work exclusively with animal organisms.⁴⁵ This is in one sense true, in that in Poland there is no human embryo research,⁹ so animal embryos are studied instead. Some Polish embryologists have been educated in other countries (mostly Israel), where they can work with human embryos (Anna Krawczak, personal communication). Why raise the spectre of research on animal embryos as secret and dangerous? As Hanafi explains: “Monsters create confusion and horror because they appear to combine animal elements with human ones; they posit a possibility of animal origins, of bestiality.” ¹⁸ Thus, the fact that IVF techniques were and are used to fertilise farm animals appears often and in more and more absurd iterations. On Catholic discussion and social forums, a picture has been circulating of a cow turned with its hind forward, saying: “I have a child from in vitro. It was made for me by a cow insemination specialist.” ²⁶

Family

The family situation of a monster is uncertain, ambiguous. It can only have a crazy scientist father, who dares steal the secret of creation from God, or a mother inseminated by the secret forces of demons or aliens. The monster's appearance in the world destabilizes the family and is an omen of its falling apart. This was well-portrayed in a public television special that aired on 10 November 2011 as a part of the Polish programme Panorama, one of the most important and widely watched news shows in Poland, broadcast on public TV. The programme was called Unwanted children from in vitro, and portrayed orphans who had been born through IVF. The message was clear: children conceived with IVF are treated like commodities in a store, which can simply be given away; they are more prone to being abandoned by their parents than other children. The show's anchor stresses this in her internet correspondence:

“It is impossible to determine how many children conceived in vitro grow up in orphanages. Their parents are not required to reveal this. The fact that children who were supposed to fulfill their parents' dreams end up in an institution should be a clear signal to policy makers that they should care for biological families and secure for children their well-known right: that returns are not accepted...”⁴⁶

In Poland, IVF is frequently portrayed as the whim of rich couples, for whom children are produced in factories, as fertility clinics are often called. Special attention is thus paid to these children's origins: they are said to be “other” compared to children conceived in marital bedrooms. A monster does not fit into the social order; it feels a lack in itself, a missing part of its biography. It is ultimately alone. Rusiecka claims there is a sort of identity gap in children conceived in vitro:

“They seem as though they aren't at all bonded with their parents. Indeed, they are conscious that these are their parents, but it is as if they didn't feel an emotional connection with their parents, as if they couldn't develop psychological contact with them, somewhere deep down they fear their parents. The parents also have problems with developing a warm, spontaneous, spiritual contact with their children.”²¹

Frankenstein, as Turney writes, is also a story of unfulfilled parenthood and love.¹⁹ The doctor went against those close to him and brought upon them the greatest of misfortunes. In turn, his monster's tragedy was that it could not have a wife or a family. The monster begged the doctor for a bride, for someone like him. In vain. Monsters do not have families. Artificial lives, according to this rhetoric, must be lonely and unhappy.

In the Polish discussion on IVF, it is the family that is ultimately at stake. The family – mother, father and at least one child – is the centre of interest for all sides. The difference lies in the path to achieving this goal. For some, an intrinsic element of the family is the marital bedroom in which conception occurs; for others, this can be replaced with technical support from a laboratory. On the one hand, a strong cultural need for a complete family, and on the other, the feeling that IVF might redefine the family are key elements in the debate. The role of marriage has become one of the fundamental points employed by opponents of new reproductive technologies; IVF's opponents counter test tubes with marital love. Marek Czachorowski from the Catholic University in Lublin argues:

“… in artificial insemination one's own child is not conceived due to marital love, or the act expressing it, but due to something else, which does not express the specificity of marital love. At the starting line of life, our child is not afforded love.”⁴⁷

Outside the marital bedroom, hence, outside the family, monsters are produced. Jarosław Gowin, a member of the ruling party in Poland and the current Minister of Justice, responsible in large part for the shape of today's debate on IVF in Poland, stresses that informal relationships are significantly more prone to being dysfunctional and thus he proposes that only married couples can use IVF.⁴⁸

Conclusion

In spite of Frankenstein's story, children born thanks to new medical technologies are no different in appearance or any other way from their so-called natural counterparts. But this does not render them less dangerous, for as René Girard has written:

“Persecutors [of others, of monsters] are never obsessed with difference but rather by its unutterable contrary, the lack of difference.”⁴⁹ Recalling Girard, Cohen stresses the importance of difference in the discursive creation of monsters:

“The monster's destructiveness is really a deconstructiveness: it threatens to reveal that difference originates in process, rather than in fact (and that ‘fact’ is subject to constant reconstruction and change).” ²⁰

The monster is like dirt, as in the famous theory of pollution and anomalies by Mary Douglas, that “There is no such thing as absolute dirt: it exists in the eye of the beholder… Dirt offends against order.” ⁵⁰ Thus, there is no such thing as an absolute monster. It is created in discourse, when the order of things is endangered. According to the Catholic church, the order of things is endangered by new reproductive technologies. In the Polish debate on IVF, moral clarity about the order of things is gained by pointing to the child's monstrosity: physical (deformity), psychological (survivor syndrome, identity crisis), social (loneliness, uncertain place in family relations), and ethical (a life burdened with many deaths). Although the experience of families with IVF does not provide examples of monster children, these arguments have become the basis for calling for a ban on IVF. This “monster strategy” is very powerful. It helps the Catholic church and right-wing politicians to seek symbolic and real domination over reproductive choices, health and rights, and to reinforce control over the family and its conceptualization in Poland.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the grant from National Science Centre in Poland (no. UMO-2011/01/B/HS3/03126). I am grateful to Anna Krawczak who shared her expertise with me.